Sanjay Hurdle
Our Constitution are concerned for different people. The political class can be a means to escape from the stampering of opposition decisions. This is the star for the judiciary. Section 143 of the Constitution gives the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court about legal questions and the same questions were sent to the Supreme Court to cope with the bills passed by the states.
In general circumstances, there was no controversy, but the question is that the question has been raised to revive the bases of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu’s governor’s decision. This is a very important question: Is this quote from the President’s President’s Reference to the Constitutional Work or Reviewing Doors?
In Tamil Nadu case, the Supreme Court had clarified that the Scispal was made to work in accordance with the help and advice of the governors and could not stop their verdict in indefinitely. The Supreme Court also decided that the constitutional authorities including the president, cannot work without the accountability without the accountability without accountability. The unsatisfactory central government has now raised some of the questions that have already been answered by this decision. This is the concept that the chapmallet is trying to re-operate the decisions based on the review process.
Under Section 143, the President gives the president of the Supreme Court on any public importance of any public importance. Bharhawal, the court is not bound to answer these scriptures. It has the authority to celebrate, such as the Special Reference Number 1 and 1993 was seen in Ayodhya dispute (special reference number 1). In the Cauvery Water Dispute case (1998 Special Reference No. 1), the Supreme Court had said that the order of Section 143 could not be used against any judge against any judge or any case which has already been fixed. The court had emphasized: “Such an Appealing region is not the right to make the court under Section 143, which means the court to revise his decision. Acute intrusion in the judiciary independence. ” (Caverey case were neroman Karnataka lawyer).
In this way, if the court has already delivered his official complaint, there is no doubt of the President. The court cannot be transferred to the appellant forum against its own. Most of the President who asked 14 questions have already been fixed in Tamil Nadu’s decision. These questions include if the Governor can send a bill with a bill, or if the President would be bound to consent. These questions are not disagreement and are determined in a clear way.
It seems that it really has been fortunate to do not opinion for the clerity but to reconsider; If so, it is not the legal issue but the foundation of the judicial prominence.
In 2012, the reference on 2G spectrum is a referral to the reference to the Supreme Court as a previous decision using Section 143. The court had sought the Rai after the court cancel 122 telecoming licenses, the auction for the distribution of natural resources is the only approved way. The court had clarified that the auction is a reasonable way but this is not the only constitutional way. Important The basic decision with clarity did not have an anchor.
The Supreme Court said: “So we believe that the distribution relating to the distribution of spectrum licensing is not assessing the ratio in the 2nd case. This difference is important. The government is not asking the court to change the court in 2G case: Just the policy climb is its objective.
In contrast, latest quote Tamil Nadu’s decision goes to the roots of the case. It does not interpret the contents or guidance for future cases. Instead, it returns to the questions that the court has earlier asked.
The opening of this means that the executive section can bypass Section 137 (which is associated with the review) can fight through Section 143. This is a constitutionally illegal and dangerous on the other organized level.
Is it necessary to answer for the court? No. In the bill case on special court, the court commented that it could refuse to respond to a quotation and the reason for doing so.
In the 2G case, the court claimed a quotation, a number of reasons: 1) If the questions already have been settled; 2) If they are political; 3) If they do not meet a constitutional purpose; 4.) If they did not engage in legal significance issues.
The verdict of Tamil Nadu is clearly stimulated the constitutional questions. Re-opening it is in danger of declining the definition of judicial decisions in case of reoccupied.
The political background cannot be neglected. The Opposition of the Opposition is adopting the tal-mtal strategy to prevent the governor law to stop the governor law. The decision of Tamil Nadu has limited it. This context or quotation came into response to this deduction, this item cannot be overlooked.
It is more than the constitutional question – this is political former. If the Supreme Court listens to this passage, it can be considered as the political pressure, especially the constitutional path of the review is open every time.
The court has had a difficult task. It will have to balance the sight of the sight of the Relief Office of the President Office, because it is a duty to maintain honesty in his decisions.
If this quote is an attempt to reburse Tamil Nadu case, the court should be forbidden to respond to it. It should be clear that Article 143 could not be used to bypass the correction of judicial decisions. If still the decisions need a decision that needs to be answered for future application, but only a little. It has to make sure it does not deny the effect of his first decisions.
Article 143 was clock for legal clerity, not politically escape. The decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu’s Governor’s Governor is obvious and found on constitutional principles.
If the efficiency does not adhere to the Constitution, the Constitution Petition. The other thing that does not allow it is the second chance to be hidden in the president’s quotation. This reference to the acceptance of the test in danger to the court and encourages dangerous trends. The judiciary should allow him to be a forum of such constitutional solutions repeatedly.
In the last analysis, the Supreme Court should not only work as an interpretation of the Constitution but also the protector. It is probably the most obvious way to refluent from responding to both things.
* The writer is senior advocates of the Supreme Court.
The watch of the trial for the Post Supreme Court Appored first on Punjabi News-Patiala.
